Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 3/30/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 15 pending claims.
Claims 1-2, 12-13, and 21 have been amended.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, and 17 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/30/2026 regarding claims objections in claims 1, 12, and 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1, 12, and 21 have been amended and the amended claims limitations overcome the claims objections. Thus, the claims objections in claims 1, 12, and 21 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/30/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 8-11 of the remark filed on 3/30/2026 that “… Step 2A, Prong One (Identify Exception). Claim 1, as amended, is not "directed to" an abstract mathematical concept …”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of “transforming the vibration data in the time domain to power data in a frequency domain by applying a Fast Fourier transform (FFT)”; “calculating a cumulative power magnitude based on the power data in the frequency domain over the data acquisition frequency”; and “predicting one or more spray droplet size statistics based on the cumulative power magnitude at a predetermined frequency by applying a prediction model correlating cumulative power magnitude at the predetermined frequency and the one or more spray droplet size statistics” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on page 11 of the remark filed that “… Even assuming, arguendo, an exception is present, claim 1 integrates the math into a practical application by using and improving a particular machine and technical process: the voltage-divider sensor (i.e., flexible resistor + precision resistor) + DAQ/microcontroller acquisition pipeline that physically couples the mathematical transformations to sensor outputs from droplet impacts, producing real-world droplet-size statistics used for spray characterization and control (ag drift mitigation, deposition optimization). This comports with MPEP § 2106 examples for using a particular machine and transforming physical signals in a specific technical field, analogous to technology-improvement cases where structured rules/processing improve a technical outcome.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element “acquiring, via a data acquisition device and/or microcontroller operatively connected to the voltage divider, the vibration data in the time domain at a data acquisition frequency” is considered necessary data gathering and thus, not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., acquiring data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element “sensing, using a vibration sensor comprising a flexible resistor connected in series with a precision resistor to form a voltage divider, vibration induced by impacts of spray droplets on a substrate to acquire vibration data in a time domain, wherein the spray droplets are emitted by a nozzle positioned a predetermined distance from the substrate” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the current claim does not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
The applicant argues on page 11-12 of the remark filed that “… The Office Action's own prior-art discussion (Giles/Pelletier) does not teach the predicting step that correlates cumulative power at a predetermined frequency to droplet-size statistics as claimed. That explicit gap, acknowledged by the Examiner, underscores that the claimed pipeline amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract math, particularly given empirical validation (R2 > 0.85; low errors; repeatability).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Significantly more can be demonstrated by additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the claims do not recite them. The limitation of “sensing, using a vibration sensor comprising a flexible resistor connected in series with a precision resistor to form a voltage divider, vibration induced by impacts of spray droplets on a substrate to acquire vibration data in a time domain, wherein the spray droplets are emitted by a nozzle positioned a predetermined distance from the substrate” is routine in predicting one or more spray droplet size statistics that influence spray deposition and drift; and are well-understood and conventional. Therefore, the claim 1 does not contain additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claims 12 and 21 recite subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also not eligible for patent.
Dependent claims 2-11, and 13-20 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Therefore, claims N-N are also patent ineligible.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1-21 are proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 7-14, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A method of predicting one or more spray droplet size statistics, comprising:
sensing, using a vibration sensor comprising a flexible resistor connected in series with a precision resistor to form a voltage divider, vibration induced by impacts of spray droplets on a substrate to acquire vibration data in a time domain, wherein the spray droplets are emitted by a nozzle positioned a predetermined distance from the substrate;
acquiring, via a data acquisition device and/or microcontroller operatively connected to the voltage divider, the vibration data in the time domain at a data acquisition frequency;
transforming the vibration data in the time domain to power data in a frequency domain by applying a Fast Fourier transform (FFT);
calculating a cumulative power magnitude based on the power data in the frequency domain over the data acquisition frequency;
predicting one or more spray droplet size statistics based on the cumulative power magnitude at a predetermined frequency by applying a prediction model correlating cumulative power magnitude at the predetermined frequency and the one or more spray droplet size statistics.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1, and apparatus for claims 12 and 21).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
In claim 1, the steps identified in bold type are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
sensing, using a vibration sensor comprising a flexible resistor connected in series with a precision resistor to form a voltage divider, vibration induced by impacts of spray droplets on a substrate to acquire vibration data in a time domain, wherein the spray droplets are emitted by a nozzle positioned a predetermined distance from the substrate; acquiring, via a data acquisition device and/or microcontroller operatively connected to the voltage divider, the vibration data in the time domain at a data acquisition frequency.
The additional element “sensing, using a vibration sensor comprising a flexible resistor connected in series with a precision resistor to form a voltage divider, vibration induced by impacts of spray droplets on a substrate to acquire vibration data in a time domain, wherein the spray droplets are emitted by a nozzle positioned a predetermined distance from the substrate” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element “acquiring, via a data acquisition device and/or microcontroller operatively connected to the voltage divider, the vibration data in the time domain at a data acquisition frequency” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, acquiring, via a data acquisition device and/or microcontroller operatively connected to the voltage divider, the vibration data in the time domain at a data acquisition frequency is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, sensing vibration induced by impacts of spray droplets on a substrate to acquire vibration data in a time domain, wherein the spray droplets are emitted by a nozzle positioned a predetermined distance from the substrate is disclosed by “Giles US 20050000277”, [0017], [0019], [0020], [0041]; and “Giles US 20060265106”, [0027], [0037], [0078], Claims 42.
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 12 and 21 recites subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-3, 7-11, 13-14, and 18-20 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 1-3, 7-14, and 18-21, the most pertinent prior arts are “Giles US 20050000277, hereinafter Giles 1”; “Pelletier US 7254493 B1” ; “Chen CN 115310487A”, “Giles US 20060265106 hereinafter Giles 2”; “Giles US 20060225489, hereinafter Giles 3”; and “Giles US 20080307893, hereinafter Giles 4”.
As to claims 1, 12, and 21, Giles 1 teaches a vibration sensor to sense vibration induced by impacts of spray droplets on a substrate acquire vibration data in a time domain, wherein the spray droplets are emitted by a nozzle positioned a predetermined distance from the substrate; (Giles 1, [0019]);
a data acquisition device and/or microcontroller operatively connected to receive an output signal from the vibration sensor to acquire vibration data in the time domain (Giles 1, [0021]);
a computing device operatively connected to the data acquisition device to receive the vibration data in the time domain and to perform a method (Giles 1, [0021], [0062].
Chen teaches acquiring, via a data acquisition device, the vibration data in the time domain at a data acquisition frequency (Chen, [0018], [0060], [0065], [0101]), and/or microcontroller operatively connected to the voltage divider.
Pelletier teaches transforming the vibration data in the time domain (Pelletier, FIGs. 3, 13, and 14) to power data in the frequency domain (Pelletier, Col. 5, Lines 29-32; FIGs. 5, 8, 9, and 10);
calculating a cumulative power magnitude based on the power data in the frequency domain over the data acquisition frequency (Pelletier, Col. 5, Lines 29-32; FIGs. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “a vibration sensor comprising a flexible resistor connected in series with a precision resistor to form a voltage divider”, and
“predicting one or more spray droplet size statistics based on the cumulative power magnitude at a predetermined frequency by applying a prediction model correlating cumulative power magnitude at the predetermined frequency and the one or more spray droplet size statistics” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-3, 7-11, 13-14, and 18-20 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1 and 12.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-3, 7-14, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights